I'm all for churches refusing the marry people they disagree with, only speeds up the process of the church its own demise due to lack of relevance in todays society.
I'm all for churches refusing the marry people they disagree with, only speeds up the process of the church its own demise due to lack of relevance in todays society.
What matters is that people who want to get married, can. As long as that is met, who cares if someone's religion is making them not want to house that in their church? That's their problem.
At the end of the day the goal of society isn't "force everyone to act the way I expect them to act and conform to my specific worldview" it's "let's all live together in this shared space, despite our differences, without killing each other."
Hasn't that always been the line? That as long as it's not hurting other people we can deal with it?
So the same goes for mosques? Or we can't interfere with their culture?
If you're a heterosexual couple... "No, you can't get married here unless you go through pre-marriage counseling and aren't divorced and blahblahblah"
If you're a homosexual couple... "We can't tell you no, so it doesn't matter what we expect of others, we can't expect it of you."
How is this *not* discrimination based on sexual orientation ?
No its the fact the world had it mixed for too long. Conservative would be the first to whine for a single citizen on welfare not being subject to rules. Religious welfare should just no longer be a thing. They give us nothing, that goes for all of them not just christian church. If they need the hand out, they need to evolve.
If you pay the Church-tax (the majority do) you are entitled to by law to be able to marry there. And the Church of Sweden has allowed gay-marriages since 2009 when they had a vote among their members. So just to clarify what isn't the issue here.
The issue is that no priest has been forced to wed a same-sex couple if they didn't want to. Löfven is saying such priests shouldn't even be priests at these churches. He only has a point because we pay a Church-tax, but I wonder if this really is wise.
"In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance
It's not about handouts so much. What reason do we have to tax religious organizations? Much of their income is based on donations really, which are also non-taxed. They are non-profit and are not selling tangible goods or services to others (maybe jewelry, books, t-shirts), just simply a big club of likeminded people. Government has zero business to meddle with religion if they promise freedom of religion. Zeek brought up the best solution in keeping marriages government based where churches are there for ceremonies.
The wise wolf who's pride is her wisdom isn't so sharp as drunk.
You are simply wrong, the separation was made to prevent both church meddling in the government and the government meddling in the church. But given that you seem to think that discussioning history is a waste of time, I guess you are proud of your ignorance. Well another one for the ignore list I guess.
If people are registered members of the church in Sweden the funding of the church comes on the taxes, actually. You become a member of the church if you've been baptised in the church shortly after birth automatically, which is a more cultural than religious practise at this point. This is reflected in how many swedes are registered Christians, but how few actually visit church. The church as it is now is getting quite a bit of funding by people who aren't active Christians too.
Id say the state actually are in a position to put some influence on the church when deemed necessary with this arrangement.
Since this crosses into both sexuality and religious discussion, both banned topics, I'm locking this here.